How Do Developers Handle Moral Dilemmas? 268
DwightFagen asks: "I'm curious to know how developers in the Slashdot community handle situations in which they are given a project that rubs against their moral borders. I was recently hired as a Flash developer for a design and development company and am just beginning my second project. This particular assignment is to build the video portion of an online magazine. This magazine deals with various topics and is by no means a pornographic site (although some content may border on that), but it seems one of its key tenets is to be untethered by social moral values. Though I do not believe such things should in any way be censored or banned from the internet, I do not wish to actively support something I believe to be an exploitation of human beings. What would you in the Slashdot community do in such a situation? Have any of you dealt with something like this before?"
"For the sake of clarity, I'd like to mention that I'm all for the freedom of expression on the internet and that I do not in any way judge people based on the media they choose to consume.
If this were a clear cut case of pornography, my choice would be simple; but that is not the case. I do still hold myself to certain standards and believe in the value of integrity and I would also like to do work that my family and friends can be proud of (or at least work that I could show them). However, I would also like to keep my job and would not want to put my small company of very nice people in a difficult position (as the deadline is not so far off)."
If this were a clear cut case of pornography, my choice would be simple; but that is not the case. I do still hold myself to certain standards and believe in the value of integrity and I would also like to do work that my family and friends can be proud of (or at least work that I could show them). However, I would also like to keep my job and would not want to put my small company of very nice people in a difficult position (as the deadline is not so far off)."
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for those of us who care about REAL morals (Score:3, Insightful)
Sucks, but its so.
Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for the logic based sector of society, they lack basic skills in value judgements.
Value judgements have three outcomes (unlike logic's two), they are "greater than", "less than", and "equal to".
Assign a weight to you're self-appointed moral. Call that x. Now, assign a value to having a job. Call that y.
1) x > y
2) x < y
3) x = y
1) If x > y, quit. Pure and simple.
2) If x < y, deal with it. We can't have everything.
3) If x = y, keep the status quo. Don't accept a new job of this, but keep any current ones.
With practice these jusdgements become easier (and more refined), and so does assigning values. But, unlike logic, these are not objective facts agreed upon by all logical people, these are subjective values that change by the person. And rightly so.
Oh yeah, let me be the first to welcome your to the real world. It takes a little trying, but i think you'll like it here. You've made a good first step.
Question yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Due to a traumatic event I witnessed as a child, I promised myself always to follow my moral principles. This turned out to be a surprisingly good strategy in all situations of my life. One thing however is absolutely essential: that you question those moral principles. They might be wrong. Some of them are wrong. Find them, weed them out.
Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral (Score:2, Insightful)
As an aside, "ending up like RMS" would hardly be anything to be ashamed of. The world would be a lot better off if more of us had the courage to take his route.
Go read some Nietzche and Sartre (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't live by axioms alone. Thou shalt not bear false witness, sayeth God. But would you then turn Anne Frank over to the authorities when the Gestapo comes knocking? Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. A hungry baby knows nothing of why you won't buy milk on Saturday.
Sartre gets to the heart of the axiom problem. There are simply too many variables to declare some certain action (a categorical imperative) to be the Right Thing. You eventually get to the point where you are now, confused about how to proceed.
Maybe there isn't anything inherently good or evil. That's Nietzche's point. Blessed are the meek, we hear. But aren't they simply damned in this lifetime? Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness. To what end? Strength, pride, and a burning desire to do something are the hallmarks of Nietzche's 'Superman'.
You sit here twiddling your thumbs hoping that someone will bust down your morals and help you see the light. That's sadly pathetic. If you don't want to do the job because you find it disagreeable, then don't do it. If you think you can live with yourself and your misgivings, then do it. Asking others for help in this situation only makes us culpable when you end up violating your own morals and feel guilty about it. I'm not sure we want to be your serpent to your Eve.
Grow some balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. If you're not going to stand up for your beliefs, why bother having them?
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently they are not breaking laws of any kind, so what really is the problem? Is your morale really that much tighter than the rules imposed on you by one of the tightest legal systems in the world?
Wow, what a way to avoid answering an honest question... you know, it is possible to disagree with the law sometimes, as flawless as it might seem. Say, for argument's sake, you've been asked to work on a web site that praises the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp [wikipedia.org] for being so humane. Is it not possible someone may object to such an assignment? What would you tell them?
Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral (Score:5, Insightful)
There are worse things than nudity, obviously. Including twits who've boiled a fairly nuanced area worthy of concern down to a false dichotomy featuring a vague glittering good and a gross oversimplification.
The OP took some care to show that he doesn't expect everyone else to share his particular standards and he's willing to respect the rights of others to produce and publish things he doesn't want to be involved in. His question isn't about whether YOU think porn is good or evil, it isn't about whether YOU think it's more important to write letters for Amnesty International or keep adult vids out of the hands of local kids. His question is about how to handle things when your employer wants you to participate in a project that crosses whatever your ethical boundaries may be. Maybe that's making a porn directory, maybe it's writing marketing copy for Exxon. If you want to contribute to the discussion, stepping up the ladder of abstraction and providing some advice on grappling with the situation would be a better alternative to criticizing the OP's or anyone else's particular moral values.
Theories of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Textual: you follow what your holy book says. There has just got to be some Bible verse against Flash.
Compassionate: you ask whether people are hurt or helped by your actions. Will the company be better off? The customer? The customer's customers? Start thinking about those last and you have a reason not to work on tobacco ads, for example.
Reciprocal: you follow the Golden Rule. What would you hope for if you were one of the parties affected by your decision?
Foreseeable consequences: what will follow from your actions?
Arbitrary crap: you grew up around people who thought something was immoral, like say interracial marriage, and you've never checked the idea against any kind of principle. This is the most common approach.
Whatever standard you use, there has to be a set of priorities to go with it. You're using the job to support your family. You'd have to quit if the place were kidnapping the homeless and turning them into Soylent Green, but for much else you have to balance against your family's well being. You have talked this over with your wife??
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
>> job where such issues are not likely to arise.
> That's the crux of the matter. There are approximately one slew of jobs out there that won't be
> morally questionable, and you'll sleep better at night knowing that you're not enabling nasty
> behavior. It's a small victory but an important one.
If, that is, the project is indeed just about to begin - the OP seems to imply that is not the case. If it's the case that you've already spent months working on the project, and you're weeks from finishing, I would say you made your choice when you started your willing participation. You took on the job and now have a duty to see it through. This goes double if it, as the OP says, is a small company that will be hurt badly by a late defection.
If you're already deep in the project, finish the job as best you know how - you've already done most of the job, and your fellow workers depend on you to finish what you agreed to do. Then, _after_ the delivery, talk with your boss. Tell him that the latest job made you seriously uncomfortable, and that you are not prepared to do a similar job again. You saw it through because you'd promised to, but you will not repeat the experience.
One of two things will happen: he'll tell you that there's no such job again on the horizon, and he'll keep this in mind if he needs to assign people t o another such thing; or he'll say this is part of the business and you need to accept doing the job to continue working there.
How easy is it for you to find work? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you don't think that you can find equitable work else where and are not willing to take a cut in pay, I strongly suggest you do what the rest of us do and play ball until such a time comes when you can afford to move on.
Your first mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your first mistake was taking a job that would put you in this position. For future reference, I suggest telling prospective employers that you have personal reasons for not working on so-called "adult-oriented" content like this. You need to say this up front or you will end up surprising them (and not in a good way) when it comes up later. Admittedly, if you say this in a job interview, you are likely to lose some possible opportunities, but your convictions are nothing more than vapor if you don't actually stand by them.
Oh, the other thing about convictions: if you are plagued with regret after you make a decision based on your convictions, there is a chance that they weren't really convictions after all, but simply some kind of moral costume you put on to help yourself feel better. Test and refine your convictions as time passes, but don't regret them: you have to believe them fully.
I was recently offered more than five times my current hourly rate to be the lead developer on a big Flash and video-intensive web site for a new casino. I have moral objections to casinos, so I turned it down. The money would have been very handy, but I still have to live with my own conscience. I'm sure someone else has picked up the job. I have zero regrets about my decision. I simply refuse to be associated with casinos and all the social problems they lead to (dramatically increased bankruptcy rates, violent crime, auto thefts, larceny, substance abuse, suicide rates, etc.).
Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre (Score:3, Insightful)
Glad to hear it.
I think you've got that backwards - it's restrictivism that doesn't work.
Think about it. The least restricted areas are always the most productive, whether by area we're talking about a neighborhood, a country, or an industrial sector. The polities that most thouroughly purge libertarian principles - the soviet union being a prominent example - collapse under their own inability to work.
Not at all. That's so frightfully far from libertarianism I must say it sounds like you've confused it with it's polar opposite.
Oh, it all makes sense now. Shoo troll.
Re:Grow some balls (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you do, it's just that they're a bit
Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that (so far) the "borg instinct" has resulted in a system where after 10,000yrs we cannot even agree to stop throwing high tech rocks at each other.
Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes you can. They just need to be thought out, figured out where applicable, and conflicting axioms must each be known in their place.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, sayeth God. But would you then turn Anne Frank over to the authorities when the Gestapo comes knocking? Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. A hungry baby knows nothing of why you won't buy milk on Saturday.
There's another moral about keeping life, which in general is considered to have more importance then other axioms, thus, if just about any other moral conflicts with it, keeping life takes precedence.
Re:Grow some balls (Score:3, Insightful)
It would look good if I were considering hiring you. If you refuse to do unethical things that your boss tells you to do, I can be pretty sure you won't do similar unethical things on your own.
Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
So whatever "it's good to not have morals" crusade you're on, I'm sure you can find less lame ways to support it than baseless "selling old computer parts you swipe from work doesn't really qualify as a business" accusations.
Maybe you just really don't have morals. Good for you. By all means, stick to that, then. But some of us do and still have a good job anyway. Some of us did leave jobs we didn't like (for ethical or other reasons)... and just found a better job instead. Go figure. Not all jobs require being a spineless minion to the biggest sociopath available.
In fact, sometimes a better job than the insecurity/denial guys trying to rationalize their taking shit and being used.See, the funny thing is, the PHB's who can operate an unethical business, usually don't show much more empathy to their employees either.
And _especially_ if your reason is "but I won't find another job if I quit", I'd strongly advise you to rethink and reevaluate it all again. Don't tell me whether it was true or not, tell it to yourself in the mirror. Do you actually believe it? Really? Again, don't tell me, tell it to yourself.
Because in all cases I've seen, it wasn't true. It was just a case of a sociopath PHB keeping a _good_ employee in line by crushing their self-esteem and sense of security.
So was it your own idea, or did someone (directly or indirectly) give you an idea along the lines of, "If you quit working for me, you'll never find another job at your age / in this economy / whatever"? Because if it was someone else, rest assured that it was a lie. The kind who'd keep you in line with that kind of a lie, would replace you at the drop of a hat, if they actually thought there are better people than you available cheaper in the unemployed pool. If you actually were too expensive / old / unskilled / unable to learn / whatever for the job, then the same kind of boss would have already replaced you long ago. (And it would be only business, so don't take it as necessarily criticizing them.) Rest assured that all the "be thankful to me that you have a job at all" BS is just a lie to keep you too scared to grow a spine or a pair of balls. They're _not_ doing you a favour, they're only doing themselves a favour with that lie.
Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre (Score:2, Insightful)
Without regulation, smart players will use these modes of failure to game the free market system and gain unfair advantage. This advantage then snowballs, giving these unscurpulous players even more power with which to game the system. Regulation addresses these areas where the free market would fail if kept strictly free.
The second area where libertarianism fails is in the ownership of natural resources. One can only fairly own what one has worked on, yet in order to work land one must own it. People unfairly fence off land and then work it, using their work to justify the fencing off which occured before the work. Anytime you take a natural resource, you are initiating force against the rest of the world who could have shared in the benefits of that resource before you took it for yourself.Don't worry about the false "Tragedy of the Commons" either. Any managed resource is safe from that tragedy, whether it is privately or publicly managed.
Finally, the end result of Libertarianism is Feudalism or slavery. When all the resources of the world are owned, any non-owners must be slaves to any owners just to survive. And under Libertarianism, this situation is gauranteed to occur. The more money and resources one has, the easier it is to game the system and acquire yet more money and resources. There are no checks and balances to keep this accumulation from happening.
Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple (Score:2, Insightful)
By completing the transaction and moving on, I have done my job. I have an ethical obligation to do that. The customers are responsible for their own moral health, and it is not my duty or business to regulate or even interfere, as long as they are not hurting anybody else. Furthermore, I cannot prevent them from buying such items, as they would just get them through another cashier or company. In this regard, the customer will get what the customer wants, and you are not in a position to mandate otherwise.
My recommendation to the submitter would be to express his discomfort to his boss (preferably about half way to completion), but to reaffirm his commitment, and absolutely do his level best at it. Whether he does the project or not, the customer will get what they paid for. The only decision after that to be made is who gets paid.
On the other hand, if I felt so strongly about a situation that I didn't feel I could supply the customer with what my employer promised them, then I would probably be looking for a new job, myself. I could not act as a representative of my company if its values were so vastly different than mine.
It all depends on what is important to the individual on a question like this.
Re:Donate (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree that excessive alcohol usage is bad, but doesnt excessive *anything* lead to very bad things?
I know many Christians who think alcohol is the "demon drink", so Im not attacking Islam... just all the religions that have this belief.
Re:No, YOU'RE missing the point (Score:1, Insightful)